Peking, Mar. 26.
Regarding the report that the Japanese are trying to maintain control over radio communication in China in contravention of the principle of the "Open Door," Reuter's Agency, as the result of inquiry in well-informed Japanese quarters, has received information in the following sense Under the contract signed with the Ministry of the Navy in February, 1918, Mitsui and Company are now constructing for the Chinese Government a high power wireless station at Shuanghiao, seven miles east of Peking, which will be capable of communicating direct with Japan, Europe and America, at.a the cost' of £536, 267. In order to secure the revenue of the station and the repayment of the capital and interest, it is also Provided that during the period of 30 years the Government shall not permit any other person or firm to erect, nor shall it erect by itself any wireless station in China for the purpose of communicating with any foreign country.
It is on account of this agreement that the allegation is made that the Japanese are seeking a monopoly of radio communication in China, but that this allegation is entirely unfounded may be proved even by the Nine Power Treaty.
I*the first place, the Nine Power Treaty, not in force yet, provides for the future for the principle of the "open door" or "Equality of Opportunity" in China for the trade and industry of al] nations, and so it cannot affect by any means the contractual rights of Mitsui and Company, existing many years before the signing of the said Treaty. that the Treaty might have In the second place, supposing; effect upon the contract, the exception to the said general principle should not be overlooked. The last clause of Art. 3 of the Treaty reads:
"Int is understood that the foregoing stipulations of this Article are not to ne construed as to prohibit the acquisition of such properties or right as may be necessary to the conduct of a particular commercial, industrial or financial under. taking: or to the encouragement of inveation _and research.
Whatever kind of assertion might be put forward against the contract, the interpretation of the last ex. ceptional clause is made too clear to admit any misunderstanding or misrepresentation by the statement made in very explicit wording on this subject by Earl Balfour and/ also by Mr. Hughes at the Washington Conference.
Even in the light of the Treaty and the resolution signed sub-
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.